I don't know about the AR, but even though they like to depend on the Internet connection for everything, I don't think they'll implement anything higher res than 2MP. Though I wish we have 4MP, heck give me 8MP, but I think that's for our future generation to get. Many many program's, broadcasts, cameras are still below 1080p (2MP).

So, AR, yes, they could create something different than what is already out there. But there are so many ratios that I don't think they will be able to set a standard. Black bars, horizontal or vertical are here to stay.

i can see Apple remaining the TV display. They could make it new aspect ratio and/or higher resolution, both of which could possibly allow for pixel-perfect 1080p content whilst still allowing for s row/column for icons, data. etc. I'm not saying they will do that but I do think it's likely Apple has explored many options with the TV to see if they can come with a concept that is markedly better.Edited by SolipsismX - 12/8/12 at 4:19pm

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

WOW, a new portmanteau! Sorry, couldn't resist¡
Wow, 4:1. That would probably be a worse experience than sitting front row at Wimbeldon.
Have you seen that Philips 21:9 Carousel vid on YouTube? I'd paste a link if I were able to copy it from the new YouTube app, but alas. Pretty cool though.

Philips was the first to consumer with HDTVs, nice seeing them pushing the bar again.

"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX

That are pretty much exactly a 21:9 aspect ratio, if not exactly 21:9. That's Philip's Cinema AR right there. Now combine that with 2560x1080 resolution and imagine that Apple has inked deals with studios for the CinemaScope (2560x1080) content for iTunes Store. Apple is starting to look like it may have found a way to get around the quality of Blu-ray by doing something Blu-ray can't yet compete with.

Would Blu-ray qualiy still be better? Well that depends. Blu-ray discs can hold 50GB of content on a single DL-disc so can get more data per frame but if you have 1920x1080 (or less than 1080) content being upscaled to fit on a 21:9 TV so it's not letterboxed Apple might be able to get away with smaller files — using the same codec, mind you, as H.265 isn't ready — that look equivalent if they are getting CinemaScope resolution data so there is no upscaling being done.

This could allow a column of icons or widgets showing other data (as an option) without affecting the pixel-to-pixel content when watching TV.Edited by SolipsismX - 12/8/12 at 9:51pm

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

That are pretty much exactly a 21:9 aspect ratio, if not exactly 21:9. That's Philip's Cinema AR right there. Now combine that with 2560x1080 resolution and imagine that Apple has inked deals with studios for the CinemaScope (2560x1080) content for iTunes Store. Apple is starting to look like it may have found a way to get around the quality of Blu-ray by doing something Blu-ray can't yet compete with.

I captured a screenshot and it looks like it is 20:9, off by 50:0 pixels in order to come at 21:9 - so I think you're right. 2560*1080 = 19:8. For an AR of 21:9 it should be 2520*1080 but now I'm fucking ants (Dutch equivalent to splitting hairs).

Blu-ray, I can't find any documentation on a mandatory AR; is there one? Apple trailer you're showing is ≈ 20:9 and it is stated as "widescreen, 720p"

Quote:

Would Blu-ray qualiy still be better? Well that depends. Blu-ray discs can hold 50GB of content on a single DL-disc so can get more data per frame...

I don't think the quality doesn't depend on the storage capacity, as they could always put the movie on 2 or more disc. Just like in the old days where you had to flip the vinyl to hear the rest of the song. lol I believe the frame rate limit for Blu-ray is 59.94p. Theoretically iTunes is not limited; a file size increase will only take longer to download.

Would be great if Apple made a 21:9 (or whatever widescreen) TV and create iTunes movie rentals/sales in that AR. Don't think that ratio is good for regular TV as one would have a worse experience than sitting front row at Wimbledon (repeating myself here). Besides, the content needs to be shot at that ratio if I understand it correctly.

I captured a screenshot and it looks like it is 20:9, off by 50:0 pixels in order to come at 21:9 - so I think you're right. 2560*1080 = 19:8. For an AR of 21:9 it should be 2520*1080 but now I'm fucking ants (Dutch equivalent to splitting hairs).

This is one of the sites I've used for years to make easy work of calculations. They have CinemaScope as 2:35 and 2560x0180 as 2:37.

PS: 'I'm fucking ants'? I love it! Idioms such odd phrases that usually have no good way or being explained, as I'm sure you know from learning English as a second language. I'm sure I'll be fascinated with language until het loodje leggen.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

It doesn't. It's all speculation. One of the reasons why the TV market sucks is because a lot of people are waiting for Apple to release an actually line of Smart TVs. And maybe just the pent up demand being built is enough to through off the TV market. Right now, Plasma is being phased out, and Sharp's new iGZO technology is going to be released next month at CES and that's supposed to be the replacement for what is currently on the market since it can go to higher resolution, requires less power, etc.

Wow, you really believe that the TV market sucks because everyone is waiting for an aPple TV. I didn't know the brainwashing had gotten that bad. I guess you'd better get in line now for when this phantom TV comes out next fall since there will be 50 million people in line waiting for it.

The bullet-point feature guesses on the previous page didn't even mention H.265. I'm going to go not-so-far-out on a limb and predict that H.265 + new Apple Interface will be the primary selling points for the new Apple TV.

Originally Posted by Frank777
Wikipedia says that the Final Draft of the HEVC [H.265] International Standard will be ratified in January 2013.

'Scuse me, I need to go drink something so I can spit it out in surprise.

Is there any doubt that Apple's going to be first out of the gate with this?

Yes. They were first with 802.11n but are somewhat lagging behind with 802.11ac.

And with the recent upheaval to iTunes, I imagine they'll be focused on fixing and changing what's already there rather than adding more new features right away. Never mind that the entire iTunes Store will* have to be converted to it before they can support it.

I actually believe HandBrake will be first to support it, even before there are any players in existence that can play the files it creates.

*I say "will"; they won't have to. But the benefits of doing so make it ludicrous to think that they wouldn't.

It's funny how a throwaway comment in a post can be the most insightful thing in the thread.

Wikipedia says that the Final Draft of the HEVC [H.265] International Standard will be ratified in January 2013.

Is there any doubt that Apple's going to be first out of the gate with this?
Isn't this likely the primary reason they've forgone the lucrative Christmas season?

The bullet-point feature guesses on the previous page didn't even mention H.265. I'm going to go not-so-far-out on a limb and predict that H.265 + new Apple Interface will be the primary selling points for the new Apple TV.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil

'Scuse me, I need to go drink something so I can spit it out in surprise.

Yes. They were first with 802.11n but are somewhat lagging behind with 802.11ac.

And with the recent upheaval to iTunes, I imagine they'll be focused on fixing and changing what's already there rather than adding more new features right away. Never mind that the entire iTunes Store will* have to be converted to it before they can support it.

I actually believe HandBrake will be first to support it, even before there are any players in existence that can play the files it creates.

*I say "will"; they won't have to. But the benefits of doing so make it ludicrous to think that they wouldn't.

A couple things that come to mind are how wireless and codec standards differ. Once H.265 is completely ratified how long before we start seeing HW decoders appear in our devices? How long before it's viable for the iPhone?

Ballparking, I would say that it takes about 4x the processing power for that codec compared to what was available when H.264 HW decoders first arrived.

That said, this isn't an all-or-nothing situation. Apple could do what it did with HD content rentals/sales on iTS where they offered an SD version for devices that couldn't load the HD version, except on this case it's a different codec.

If they have an Apple HDTV that can grab 4K iTS files that aren't much bigger than current 1080p iTS files that might be more than enough draw for the time being. don't they already have some wonky rule where if you rent/ via the Apple TV it will not let you push it back to iTunes and to other devices, only to the Apple TV of you rent on the rent via some other device?

I'd say CES 2013 will be our best guess to see what the state of H.265 is in. If we see that at CES in devices in some fashion then I think it's in te table.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Ballparking, I would say that it takes about 4x the processing power for that codec compared to what was available when H.264 HW decoders first arrived.

That sounds about right, actually, from what I remember reading. Marvin would probably know better.

That said, this isn't an all-or-nothing situation. Apple could do what it did with HD content rentals/sales on iTS where they offered an SD version for devices that couldn't load the HD version, except on this case it's a different codec.

Right. I see Apple keeping their M4V versions around (of course) for all the computers that can't update to a version of iTunes that can play HEVC files. Those that can will by default have HEVC-coded files download from iTunes when they purchase stuff. There'll be a dropdown in preferences where you can switch between MP4 and HEVC (next to to the one that lets you pick resolution now, but offering an analogue in functionality to the one in the Import Settings button). The choosing would basically just be for people that have computers that can do HEVC but iDevices that can't.

Why did they hide the import settings stuff in its own box, anyway? I guess they assume people don't rip discs as much anymore.

I think they'll be able to reuse a lot of the hardware accelerated video algorithms from H.264 but for higher complexity video encoding, it'll probably be very slow. It could be faster at achieving the same level of compression as H.264 but far slower to get double the compression.

Compression is all about removing redundant information so to compress more, they have to do a longer/broader search. I'm personally quite happy with H.264 as far as quality/size. If H.265 just speeds up the encoder at the same quality or allows a noticeable reduction in size for a reasonable compute time it's all good.

For broadcast content, they can of course spend more time on encoding but I think they'll have to do a lot better than what the experiments show to be practical. I don't think they'd bother implementing it though unless they had a plan to make it feasible in the next few years.

Not bad for HEVC but not 50% better and X264 encode need ~10 sec and HM9.1 746 sec"

That reference implementation can't have much optimization.

It's not clear that the real-time implementations are delivering half the bitrate though. From the PSNR improvements in the Vanguard codec, it seems like it will mainly offer slightly better quality at the same bitrate. The amount of quality improvement can be significant:

Fully agree JeffDM, a really poor mockup I found. But still, the fact that it is different and a viable better option than what we have today made me post it. I certainly do hope Apple will create a TV, but I am still 'weary' of the thought.

Fully agree JeffDM, a really poor mockup I found. But still, the fact that it is different and a viable better option than what we have today made me post it. I certainly do hope Apple will create a TV, but I am still 'weary' of the thought.
Thankfully, they always make me get the picture.

Maybe wary.

Siri can certainly make complicated tasks simpler, such as where you just say a name and it can give you a list and maybe point you where you last left off if it's the name of a series. Everything else might be refinements. There are other sources, but maybe make it more convenient, which Siri would be part of that puzzle.

I find it weird how Mossberg just films himself in his house on a webcam. It doesn't look very professional.

I think TV UIs and remotes are more complex than they need to be. I like how Samsung has put touch, voice input and gestures together but it's cluttered and not intuitive:

I don't like the bezel size either, I find thin bezels on TVs distracting because there's not enough of an indication for where the content ends.

One thing I really don't like about TVs are the bases. They always have really unattractive shapes to them. Apple couldn't use the same base as the Cinema display because TVs aren't really meant to be tilted and it wouldn't be very stable with the display higher up.

They could tighten the angle on the stand though and fix it in at the base, like so:

The base itself wouldn't even need to be fixed. It could be a vertical plane of metal that goes inside the display. The display can just slot onto it. This way, wall mounting is easier as you don't need a special fixing plate at the back. You just have a another piece of metal attached to a bracket and the display slots onto that too.

It would just have HDMI x 4, power and USB at the back.

Laminated panel, built-in speakers, Facetime camera. The remote would be touch-based like the Samsung but trackpad-sensitive with a glass surface portion and just two physical buttons - menu on the left (represented by 3 horizontal lines - no language issues) and play/pause on the right.

I don't like the current TV icons but it is easier to see the colours and icons from a distance, I just like the idea of having a higher-level text menu that goes into an icon view as I think it's more efficient.

Siri on the remote would of course let you do complex searches quickly like "all movies by Steven Spielberg" or "who's that actor?" and it does a face search for who you are watching in the film. It can narrow it down quite quickly from the cast list. I don't see it being used much to control the TV as it's too slow being server-side but the touch remote is fine for this.

The thumbprint scanner would be for personal profiles and security.

If it has a built-in tuner, the metal back could cause problems. It's easy enough to get a tuner so it can be left out and this helps not needing variations internationally.

Then they'd remove the iTunes pay-to-watch barrier to content.

Realistically, they're only going to match the likes of Sony so say 5% of the TV market vs Samsung's 30%, LG's 15%. Samsung's 30% share is 1m per month in the US so 500k for Apple in the US per quarter. This is 1/3 the number of Macs they sell and the margins will be the same or worse.

I think they could design a really nice TV but there's not much reason to profit-wise unless they take a cut of broadcast content but it's hard to have any leverage there when you have no customers. I'd just like to be able to watch or listen to anything on iTunes with a subscription and Apple would simply divide up the subscription revenue based on whose content was watched most.

Say they have 50,000 TV shows. If they get 50 million users paying $5 per month, they can just divide up the $250m every month based on show popularity after taking a cut. It would work the same for music.

I like your eye for detail on the stand, indeed way too high. The thumb scanner is a very clever idea, could be programmed with favourite channels et cetera. I don't know about the speakers being build in, Apple has a tendency to create their products thin, so a separate speaker system, speaker bar or whatever might be the only way for them to go. Personally I think they are better off if they just create the screen completely isolated from all the other components: have the tuner, power adapter, maybe even the speakers in one box and the screen as thin as possible as a second item. This will allow them to update the box more often than the screen.

And then there's the screen size. I know Americans like the large type, 50", 60" some even go as far as 80". Not me though, 32" is big enough for my taste. It's more turned off then on, and I don't have it tucked away like in the CRT days.

I still cannot realistically think Apple will make a complete TV set, but if they do, I don't think they'll grant my wish: most sensible thing to do is to create the sizes most popular, and that doesn't include a 32".

I find it weird how Mossberg just films himself in his house on a webcam. It doesn't look very professional.
I think TV UIs and remotes are more complex than they need to be. I like how Samsung has put touch, voice input and gestures together but it's cluttered and not intuitive:I don't like the bezel size either, I find thin bezels on TVs distracting because there's not enough of an indication for where the content ends.

Hey! Apple likes minimalism in hardware. You should just paint your wall black. Don't take this as trolling. The idea is just extremely funny to me for some reason.

I am an advocate of absolutely hating everything that I do. That I do. I don't like it when other people get down on themselves.

I just gotta ask: how do you intend on controlling it with a current Apple Remote? Or is that not part of the edits that you've done; more just a layout mockup?

You wanna have some fun with remote designs?

EDIT: Here's what I see as the simplest possible remote to control either an Apple HDTV or an Apple TV+TV.

Power would handle power for either the TV or both the TV and Apple TV. Circle's for navigation, button in the center is for accepting. Menu brings up the menu (or takes you back to the menu; probably that) wherever you are in the UI. Volume rocker handles volume.

Maybe Power would be in the center, but then you still have the volume rocker asymmetry, so I put it on the other side.

Doesn't need a number pad, doesn't need those four colored buttons (whatever those are supposed to do on a Blu-ray player…).

Nine buttons to bring you the best television experience you've ever had. And the simplest one since the days of just ABC, NBC, and CBS.

I see it more like a iPod with a power button on top right, volume controls on upper left slide, home button(used for Siri, menu, hopefully multi tasking) the click wheel (touch screen is possible but maybe to much) a HDTV camera above it(maybe strictly to TV) headphone jack at bottom( not necessary) plus one or two microphones, this still only uses 8 buttons but a much simpler format designed more apple like with a Apple TV interface.